The Emergent Church and Scripture

Sola’s note: This article was written in 2006, but has been updated and revised for today’s post.

The Emergent/Postmodern movement has impacted many churches and denominations across the United States. The Evangelical Free Church has not been immune, with congregations impacted, and even split, over this “new kind of Christianity.” In the best sense (if there is one), the idea is to reach a postmodern generation with the Gospel in ways they can understand. In the worst sense, the churches themselves adopt a postmodern mindset and philosophy toward truth.

I have little use for postmodernism, and even less use for the Emergent Church philosophy. My concerns are many, but I’ll only discuss one here today — mainly the low view of Scripture that many adherents of the EC seem to have. I say "seem" to have because one is never really certain of what they really think. Certainty is, after all, anathema to a postmodern. (Okay, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek).

I had mulled over several approaches to this until EC leader Brian McLaren lobbed a water balloon filled with limberger cheese into the blogosphere - his suggestion a few years ago at the Leadership Journal blog that Christian pastors, leaders, theologians etc. put a five year moratorium on making comments about homosexuality until we can figure out what we think about it. McLaren’s blog entry, of course, unleashed a firestorm. When I read his initial statement, I was aghast. Then, when I read his response to those who have rightly taken him to the woodshed, I was even more aghast. But for my purposes at least, it couldn't have come at a better time as it illustrated beautifully the point I wanted to make about the EC and God's Word.

The worst of the EC and those who embrace the postmodern mindset love to throw all sorts of ambiguity and doubt into any crystal clear, unambiguous assertion one might make. While Brian and others in the EC might not know what to think about this issue, God's Word leaves no such doubts as to what God Himself thinks. Deuteronomy 18:22 sets God's view bluntly. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination (tow 'ebah or to 'ebah in the Hebrew). Abomination is defined as a "disgusting thing" in a ritual sense as well as in an ethical sense. Far from this merely being an Old Testament/Torah prohibition, strictures against this type of behavior are also found in Romans chapter 1 and other New Testament locations.

Only in the postmodern mind can these Scriptures somehow be interpreted other than their plain meaning. Wishful thinking, maybe. You really have to either redefine them or reject them outright. But we are not to look at God's Word through a postmodern prism. Scripture makes it very clear that God will not grade on the curve when it comes to His Word. People can blind themselves through their own stubbornness and rebellion. Having done so, they will not be excused for their blindness and stubbornness.

We need to understand the ramifications of this as it goes beyond the issue of homosexuality. To not believe God's Word is to not believe God Himself. What is the opposite of "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?" If Abraham had not believed God, it would have been reckoned to him as unrighteousness. What does Scripture tell us of those who do not believe? It tells us they are condemned already. If we can't believe what God said about human sexuality, how can we believe what He said about how one is made right before Him? How can we believe the Gospel, by which we are saved (1 Corinthians 15)?

We had best stop playing eeny meeny miney moe with the Bible. And before someone attempts to throw it at me (Brian tried this argument in his response post), don't bother telling me that we don't stone people to death any more for violations of Mosaic law. I learned in Sunday school class as a child the differences between the Old Covenant and New Covenant, as well as the differences between ceremonial and moral law. When the EC or other liberal theologians try this, understand that it is merely a smokescreen designed to throw people into a thousand bunny trails away from the key issue being discussed. If a pastor is uninformed about the differences between the Law of Moses and the New Covenant, then he has no business wearing his clerical collar and Birkenstocks. Unless his obfuscation is intentional, which makes it all the more repugnant.

I am thankful to Professor D.A. Carson, Dr. David Hesselgrave, Rev. Kevin S. Johnson and others for their labors in raising concerns about the Emergent Church. I am deeply troubled that EFCA congregations — some of them fairly large churches — are so enthralled with it. I have some ideas on the underlying reasons churches fall into fads and traps such as these. I’ll talk about those reasons in my next post.